If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This law should definitely not hold water. Businesses don't want to be the ones to challenge it though, so they do like Canonical and resort to playing nice with the laws and hope someone else does.

What we need are outraged citizens pushing to get this stupid laws changed.

Well businesses wouldn't mind challenging it if they had a chance of success, but they don't.

Just for the record we are dealing with two different legal things here:

Software patents for codecs. Which is why Theora is being pushed for web content even though it is technically inferior to H.264. DVDs use MPEG2 which is still patent encrusted.

DMCA protections of digital protection schemes. Breaking a digital copyright protection scheme is illegal even if it is not for the purposes of violating copyrights. The protections themselves are protected.

Very insane.

VLC and such, which is insanely popular and one of the best avialable for all platforms, is technically illegal in the USA.

For individual users this isn't a big deal, but for people wanting to use Linux in a professional capacity or OEMs that want to providing working Linux systems to end users then this is a big issue. Providing legal means for working around and licensing patents for codecs is one of the major points behind gstreamer and is a central aspect of Fluendo's business model.

Bless them for it, also. Otherwise we'd be stuck with Helix/Realplayer type things.

Breaking a digital copyright protection scheme is illegal even if it is not for the purposes of violating copyrights. The protections themselves are protected.

Actually everyone is entitled to create one backup copy of all their CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray content under the DMCA. You are entitled to break the copy protection, you just can't link to or host the tools that allow that to be accomplished.

Actually everyone is entitled to create one backup copy of all their CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray content under the DMCA. You are entitled to break the copy protection, you just can't link to or host the tools that allow that to be accomplished.

This law never ceases to amaze me in its braindead-ness. Let's hope something like this never makes it across the pond.

Actually everyone is entitled to create one backup copy of all their CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray content under the DMCA. You are entitled to break the copy protection, you just can't link to or host the tools that allow that to be accomplished.

I've never heard of this; do you have a citation? The exceptions I know of, as I understand them, are:

1) Every 3 years, the Librarian of Congress may specify classes of works that are exempt from anticircumvention.

2) Non-profit libraries and educational institutions determining whether to acquire a copy of a work, but only if it's not reasonably available in a form that doesn't require circumvention.

4) Reverse-engineering of computer programs; only allowed for activities that are not copyright infringement, only for the purposes of interoperability research, only by someone with the legal right to use the program, and only if the information is not reasonably available by other means.

5) Encryption research; only allowed for activities that are not copyright infringement, only performed on legal copies, and the information must be presented in a way that enhances the scholarly understanding of encryption and not in a way that facilitates copyright infringement.

6) Security testing; only allowed for testing that would otherwise be legal under copyright and computer fraud laws.

4) Reverse-engineering of computer programs; only allowed for activities that are not copyright infringement, only for the purposes of interoperability research, only by someone with the legal right to use the program, and only if the information is not reasonably available by other means.

5) Encryption research; only allowed for activities that are not copyright infringement, only performed on legal copies, and the information must be presented in a way that enhances the scholarly understanding of encryption and not in a way that facilitates copyright infringement.

6) Security testing; only allowed for testing that would otherwise be legal under copyright and computer fraud laws.

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.— (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

So while you have the right to copy such works for personal archive purposes under fairuse, the process for being able to do so would be illegal.

The only exceptions to this is:

1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.

And if you'd stop cherry picking and read all of Title 17 you'd find sections detailing similar rights for music recordings, etc. You'd also find that chapter 12 does not limit fair use rights, from your link:

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

The process of copying is not illegal, it is guaranteed under fair use. The tools that allow the copying, are illegal to distribute, however.

And if you'd stop cherry picking and read all of Title 17 you'd find sections detailing similar rights for music recordings, etc. You'd also find that chapter 12 does not limit fair use rights, from your link:

The process of copying is not illegal, it is guaranteed under fair use. The tools that allow the copying, are illegal to distribute, however.

There is no general agreement that violations of Sec. 1201 constitute copyright infringement, nor is there any wording in 1201 itself to limit the prohibition to acts of circumvention furthering copyright infringement, so it's not at all clear that fair use or other claims of non-infringing use can be used as a defense to circumvention violations. Indeed, some of the exemptions in the statute explicitly require that the exempted activities be non-infringing in addition to other restrictions. If circumvention for all non-infringing use were permitted, such exemptions would be totally unnecessary.